COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant order, we propose to dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 777 and 778 of 2008. The issue which arises for consideration is the validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, on January 19, 2007, whereby, the penalty imposed on the respondent -assessee under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was ordered to be set aside.

(2.) THE basis of the controversy raised in the instant appeals emerges from the order dated October 11, 1993 (annexure A1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, showing that the respondent -assessee, Sunil Kumar Goel, had taken the following loans in cash:

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that it is not open to an assessee to accept a loan or a deposit (the aggregate whereof, is in excess of Rs. 20,000) by way of cash. It is apparent from the factual position noticed from the extract of the order dated October 11, 1993, that the respondent -assessee had taken loans in excess of Rs. 10,000 by way of cash. This action of the respondent -assessee was sought to be penalized by invoking Section 271D of the Act. Section 271D of the Act is also being extracted hereunder: